3 ms·

> there aren’t a ton of good options for workers seeking shorter hours. But you do have that option, right? Work 20 hours a week instead of 40. You just aren't

> there aren’t a ton of good options for workers seeking shorter hours. But you do have that option, right? Work 20 hours a week instead of 40. You just aren't paid for the hours that you don't work. In a world where workers are exchanging their labor for wages, that's how it's supposed to work. For there to be a "better option" (as in, you're paid money for not working more hours) what are you actually being paid to do? For all the thoughts that come to mind when I say "work 20 hours a week instead of 40" -- that's where the individual's preference comes in. I work more hours because I want the money. Nobody pays me to not work.

dragonwriter 1y ago
> But you do have that option, right? Not really. Lots of kinds of work don’t hire part timers in any volume period. There are very limited jobs where the only tradeoff if you want to work fewer hours is a reduction in compensation proportional to the reduction in hours worked, or even just a reduction in compensation even if disproportionate to the reduction in hours worked.
BriggyDwiggs42 1y ago
>nobody pays me not to work. If you’re in the US, then in theory you’re getting overtime for going over 40hrs a week. That’s time and a half for doing nothing, correct? I’d expect your principles put you firmly against overtime pay. >But you do have that option, right? Work 20 hours a week instead of 40. You just aren't paid for the hours that you don't work. In a world where workers are exchanging their labor for wages, that's how it's supposed to work. Look the core of your opinion is the belief that market dynamics naturally lead to desirable outcomes always. I simply don’t believe that, and I think interference to push for desirable outcomes which violate principles of a free market is often good. We probably won’t be able to agree on this.
- hatefulmoron 1y ago
  > I’d expect your principles put you firmly against overtime pay. No.. if society wants to disincentive over working by introducing overtime, that's fine by me. I'm not making any moral judgement. You just seem to live in a fantasy world where people aren't exchanging their labor for money. > Look the core of your opinion is the belief that market dynamics naturally lead to desirable outcomes always. I didn't say that, and I don't believe that. If you're just going to hallucinate what I think, what's the point in replying?
  - BriggyDwiggs42 1y ago
    >You just seem to live in a fantasy world where people aren't exchanging their labor for money. Where did you get that? My entire contention centers around a lack of good options for workers seeking to work fewer hours. A logical assumption, then, would be that I want policies which would give said workers more options. Examples include stronger protections for unions, higher minimum wages, etc. Since I saw these as the logical extrapolations from what I'd said originally, I figured your issue was gov interference in the labor market itself, since you said things like >In a world where workers are exchanging their labor for wages, that's how it's supposed to work. >(as in, you're paid money for not working more hours) You took issue with more money for the same hours, did you not? Why wouldn't overtime be an obvious example? The reason I assumed you were just a libertarian or something was because it doesn't seem like there's an obvious logical juncture to draw a line at. If you're fine with society altering the behavior of the labor market to achieve certain desirable results, then why would this be any different fundamentally?
    - hatefulmoron 1y ago
      I think you're confused. I'm not making any moral judgements or prescriptions here. If you want to change society such that we're not working in exchange for money, then go ahead. Overtime is an example of a policy which limits that relationship. However, while we live in the world where we're exchanging labor for money, it's not as simple as what you originally wrote: "I think it’s just the result of disproportionate political influence held by the wealthy, who are heavily incentivized to maximize working hours." You're not considering the choices being made by the people actually doing the work. People work for a significant amount of their life because they're paid to do it. There's no council of wealthy people conspiring to achieve this conclusion: they have work that needs to be done, and they're willing to pay for people to do it. My thesis was just this: while people are exchanging labor for money, people will work. If you introduce a policy where people are given some UBI regardless of employment, they will still work. They want the money. They will buy more televisions, better food, more vacations. If I'm paid my current salary to work for 5 hours a week, I will start interviewing for more jobs. And yes, inflation may soon render the UBI you've introduced to be not so great.
vjvjvjvjghv 1y ago
At least in the US part time work often not really a thing. A while ago I talked to HR about reducing to 32 hours and they didn't seem to get the idea at all. It's either all in or nothing. In the US there is also the health insurance question. For my relatives in Germany going part time seems easier and more accepted by companies.

dragonwriter 1y ago

> But you do have that option, right? Not really. Lots of kinds of work don’t hire part timers in any volume period. There are very limited jobs where the only tradeoff if you want to work fewer hours is a reduction in compensation proportional to the reduction in hours worked, or even just a reduction in compensation even if disproportionate to the reduction in hours worked.

BriggyDwiggs42 1y ago

>nobody pays me not to work. If you’re in the US, then in theory you’re getting overtime for going over 40hrs a week. That’s time and a half for doing nothing, correct? I’d expect your principles put you firmly against overtime pay. >But you do have that option, right? Work 20 hours a week instead of 40. You just aren't paid for the hours that you don't work. In a world where workers are exchanging their labor for wages, that's how it's supposed to work. Look the core of your opinion is the belief that market dynamics naturally lead to desirable outcomes always. I simply don’t believe that, and I think interference to push for desirable outcomes which violate principles of a free market is often good. We probably won’t be able to agree on this.

hatefulmoron 1y ago
> I’d expect your principles put you firmly against overtime pay. No.. if society wants to disincentive over working by introducing overtime, that's fine by me. I'm not making any moral judgement. You just seem to live in a fantasy world where people aren't exchanging their labor for money. > Look the core of your opinion is the belief that market dynamics naturally lead to desirable outcomes always. I didn't say that, and I don't believe that. If you're just going to hallucinate what I think, what's the point in replying?
- BriggyDwiggs42 1y ago
  >You just seem to live in a fantasy world where people aren't exchanging their labor for money. Where did you get that? My entire contention centers around a lack of good options for workers seeking to work fewer hours. A logical assumption, then, would be that I want policies which would give said workers more options. Examples include stronger protections for unions, higher minimum wages, etc. Since I saw these as the logical extrapolations from what I'd said originally, I figured your issue was gov interference in the labor market itself, since you said things like >In a world where workers are exchanging their labor for wages, that's how it's supposed to work. >(as in, you're paid money for not working more hours) You took issue with more money for the same hours, did you not? Why wouldn't overtime be an obvious example? The reason I assumed you were just a libertarian or something was because it doesn't seem like there's an obvious logical juncture to draw a line at. If you're fine with society altering the behavior of the labor market to achieve certain desirable results, then why would this be any different fundamentally?
  - hatefulmoron 1y ago
    I think you're confused. I'm not making any moral judgements or prescriptions here. If you want to change society such that we're not working in exchange for money, then go ahead. Overtime is an example of a policy which limits that relationship. However, while we live in the world where we're exchanging labor for money, it's not as simple as what you originally wrote: "I think it’s just the result of disproportionate political influence held by the wealthy, who are heavily incentivized to maximize working hours." You're not considering the choices being made by the people actually doing the work. People work for a significant amount of their life because they're paid to do it. There's no council of wealthy people conspiring to achieve this conclusion: they have work that needs to be done, and they're willing to pay for people to do it. My thesis was just this: while people are exchanging labor for money, people will work. If you introduce a policy where people are given some UBI regardless of employment, they will still work. They want the money. They will buy more televisions, better food, more vacations. If I'm paid my current salary to work for 5 hours a week, I will start interviewing for more jobs. And yes, inflation may soon render the UBI you've introduced to be not so great.

vjvjvjvjghv 1y ago

At least in the US part time work often not really a thing. A while ago I talked to HR about reducing to 32 hours and they didn't seem to get the idea at all. It's either all in or nothing. In the US there is also the health insurance question. For my relatives in Germany going part time seems easier and more accepted by companies.